CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s81EF3014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1D9CC8DC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.1pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s85890BEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s19F0EDEC { margin-left:4.11pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s893B0865 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:22.11pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE69CDE9F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3DF4BFCD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.66pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC44C3C9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sACBB7403 { width:6.79pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s834E3C44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sF89D8075 { width:7.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s829C9466 { width:149.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s85E2A1C4 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .sEB9C64EC { height:76.4pt } .sD271F6F6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3E08F9CA { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC54D2024 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 40410/07 Milijan KOSTIĆ against Serbia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 March 2025 as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 September 2007, Having regard to the notification provided to the Court in 2013 of Ms Anđa Kostić and Ms Maja Kostić’s intention to pursue the application following the death of the applicant in 2010; Having regard to the decision of 17 September 2013 to give notice to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) of the applicant’s complaints concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of his son and the alleged inadequacy of the ensuing investigation, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; Having deliberated, decides as follows: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present application essentially concerns, under Article 2 of the Convention, the death of the late applicant’s son Mr Dragan Kostić (“D.K.”) while he was on compulsory military service, and the ensuing investigation into the circumstances of his death, which was recorded as a suicide. THE FACTS 2 .     The applicant, Mr Milijan Kostić, was a Serbian national who was born in 1950 and lived in Požega. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Savić, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. Following the applicant’s death in May 2010, his widow and daughter, Ms Anđa Kostić and Ms Maja Kostić respectively, expressed their wish to pursue the present application in the applicant’s stead and continued to instruct the same counsel. For reasons of convenience, the term “the applicant” will continue to be employed in reference to late Mr Kostić, while Ms Anđa Kostić and Ms Maja Kostić, who are now to be regarded as such (see paragraph 113 below), will be referred to as “the applicant’s successors” and/or by their names, as appropriate. All names, dates of birth, places of residence and relationship to both deceased (D.K. and the applicant) are given in the annex to this decision. 3.     The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić, and most recently by Ms Z. Jadrijević Mladar, one of her subsequent successors in that office. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. The death of the applicant’s son D.K. on 27 August 2004 and the ensuing official investigation 5.     D.K. was born on 26 December 1981 and died on 27 August 2004 at the military barracks in Leskovac, where he had been carrying out his compulsory military service since 1 March 2004 as a conscript in the army of the then State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. 6.     Military records showed that on the night before the incident D.K. was on night guard duty in guard room no. 4 (VP 4796/6) on the second floor of building 23 at the Jablanica military barracks in Leskovac (VP 3878) from 11   p.m. to 1 a.m. and from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. At around 7 a.m. D.K. was found in a nearby conscripts’ dormitory, ten metres away down the corridor, with two gunshot wounds to his chest. The same day, at around 3 p.m., the applicant and his family were informed that earlier that day D.K. had taken his own life. 7.     Previously, on 24 August 2004, D.K. had undergone a routine psychological examination and had been found capable of acting as a duty guard. It was his seventh weekly guard duty since his conscription. 1. The initial inquiry immediately following the incident (Kr. 96/04) (a)    The inspection of the scene of the incident and related collection of evidence 8 .     On the same date an on-duty investigating judge of the Niš Military Court, Captain ( kapetan ) I.D. (hereinafter “the military investigating judge”) drew up a scene of incident report “regarding the suicide of D.K.” (“ zapisnik o uviđaju ... povodom samoubistva D.K.” ) as follows (see paragraphs 9-15 below). 9 .     On 27 August 2004 at 7.15 a.m. the military investigating judge had received a report by telephone from Senior Corporal ( stariji vodnik ) P.Z., of the Leskovac Military Police (VP 8070/3) that a conscript had, according to the initial information, most probably took his own life at around 7   a.m. at the military barracks. The military investigating judge ordered that the scene of the incident be secured until his arrival. Following his arrival, the Leskovac military police stood guard. 10.     Between 9 a.m. and 11.45 a.m, an inspection of D.K.’s body and the scene was conducted by a military inspection team which consisted of the military investigating judge, the Niš military prosecutor Colonel ( pukovnik ) S.R., the crime scene technicians Senior Corporals P.Z. and LJ.T. of the Leskovac Military Police, Colonel R.N. in respect of VP 7357 Leskovac and Captain (first class) ( kapetan prve klase ) Z.V. in respect of VP 4796/6 Leskovac. 11.     The body was found around two metres from the entrance of the conscripts’ dormitory, prone on the ground, with its arms underneath it. In the course of the inspection, Major S.J. (VP 3878) explained that he had been in his office, which was in a nearby corridor, when he had heard two gunshots. When he reached the dormitory he saw D.K. lying on the floor and convulsing. A Warrant Officer, B.C., who was also at the scene, turned D.K. on to his side to prevent suffocation, while the Major ran out to give the alert. On his return, D.K. was showing no signs of life and he was left in the position in which he was then found by the inspection team. 12.     The body was then turned on its back. The damaged and bloody clothes were removed. Two bullet wounds of around 1 cm each, with traces of blood and burns, were observed on the breastbone ( sternum ) and around 5   cm to the right, respectively. Two irregularly shaped wounds with traces of blood were also observed on the back. 13 .     The “preserved evidence” ( fiksirani tragovi ) was recorded in the report as follows: (1) the guard room no. 4; (2) the entrance door of the dormitory where “the conscript D.K. had committed suicide”; (3) D.K.’s body, which had been found around 2 m from the entrance door; (4) an M-70B1 automatic assault rifle [1] , found some distance to the right of the internal dormitory door, around 1.2 m behind the body; the fire selector was found in the “burst-fire” position and 26 bullets were taken out of the receiver, while no visible damage was observed; (5) one empty 7.62 mm cartridge case found 0.5 m from the rifle, between it and the body; (6) one unfired 7.62 mm bullet found around 30 cm from items 4 and 5; (7) another unfired 7.62 mm bullet found immediately under the rifle stock and another empty cartridge case in the right hand corner of the dormitory, to the right of the door and behind the bin; (8) traces of blood and body tissue on the bed and bedside table 1 m right from the body; (9 and 10) two marks on the ceilings, apparently from bullets, “a bit to the right, closer to the windows”. Apart from those marks, the team also noted a mark on the right wall, which they assumed was the result of a bullet ricocheting off the wall upwards towards the ceiling. The fired bullets were not found, but the crime scene technicians concluded that they must have gone through the dormitory ceiling. They were apparently not looked for. 14 .     The military investigating judge also performed a paraffin test on D.K.’s hands and slid a cloth through the rifle barrel in order to enable identification of traces of gunpowder. 15 .     Referring to the incident as “suicide”, the military investigating judge ordered the transfer of the body, together with the paraffin samples, to the Military Medical Academy (“M.M.A.”; Vojno-medicinska akademija ) in Belgrade and further ordered to perform: (a) an autopsy with a special focus on the trajectory of the bullets to determine, inter alia, the cause of death, the presence of any injuries on the body and, if there were any injuries, when they had been sustained; (b) a toxicological and chemical analysis of the body; and (c) a technical examination of the rifle and the paraffin samples. 16 .     In a note dated 28 August 2004, the investigating judge stated that after the inspection of the scene he had ordered the technicians to check D.K.’s clothes and lockers “as regards his suicide”. Nothing relevant to the incident was found in D.K.’s lockers. His mobile telephone had been found and the calls received and missed and numbers dialled were all noted. 17 .     The military police officers also took written statements from a number of the conscripts and officers “on the self-inflicted wounding” and apparently, also, about money that had been stolen from D.K. the night before the incident. (b)    The first autopsy report of 2004 and other forensic evidence 18 .     The autopsy was performed on 28 August 2004, that is on the following day, at 9 a.m. by Doctor G.M.T. under the supervision of Colonel Dr I.M., the Head of the M.M.A.’s Institute of Forensic Medicine. The applicant had previously been shown the body of his son. He claimed that he had noticed a certain black substance, like soil, in his son’s mouth, and that Dr I.M. had commented that the applicant’s son did not take his own life but had clearly been the victim of a knife attack (“ da su radili noževi ”). Dr I.M. denied ever making any such comment. 19 .     The autopsy report concluded that D.K. had died violently by suicide ( Mors violenta. Suicidium. ) and his death had been caused by heavy blood loss resulting from ruptures ( iskrvavljenje iz rascepa ) of the heart, lungs, spleen, thoracic diaphragm and the blood vessels of the soft tissue along and around the trajectory of the gunshots through the torso ( kanala prostreline trupa ), caused by a projectile from a handheld firearm ( nanesenih dejstvom projektila ispaljenih iz ručnog vatrenog oružja ). Two bullet entry wounds were observed, one inside the area of the right breast ( u unutrašnjoj polovini desnog dojkinog predela ), and the second in the area of the breastbone ( u   grudnjačinom predelu ). Bullet exit wounds were observed on the back, one in the middle and the other more to the left, under the left shoulder blade. 20 .     The forensic experts concluded that the bullets had been fired at point blank range ( apsolutni prislon ), from front to back, right to left and from above downwards. 21 .     The report also noted, under point 7, a number of linear and arc-shaped scars [skin] neck injury, as well as a haematoma and extensive lacerations in parallel arcs over an area of 2 cm x 1.3 cm on his forehead ( frontalis; desna čeona kvrga ) and 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the back of his head (lower third of the occiput on the left hand side ; zadnja trećina temenog predela sa leve strane ), and explained that they had been “inflicted with a blunt mechanical object” ( nanete tupim mehaničkim oruđem ). Their connection, if any, to the fatal outcome remained unaddressed. 22 .     The report also listed other pathological anatomical diagnoses, such as cerebral oedema and hemoperitoneum, as well as grazed skin, dry, solid and dark red, on the upper leg ( ogoljena koža na natkolenici ). 23 .     The toxicological analysis carried out on 2 September 2004 by the Department for Toxicology at the M.M.A.’s Poison Control Centre found no traces of any significant substance. 24.     On 3 September 2004 D.K.’s parents visited the Jablanica barracks where they encountered the officers and, according to those officers, exchanged strong words with them. 2.     Further investigating activities taken by the military investigating bodies (Ktn no. 49/04, Ktn no. 24/04 and Ki no. 449/04) 25 .     A formal preliminary judicial investigation against person or persons unknown ( predlog za sprovođenje pojedinih istražnih radnji protiv NN lica ) in respect of the offences of incitement to suicide and assisting in suicide under Article 51 of the Criminal Code was instituted. 26 .     On 6 October 2004 the Niš Military Prosecutor Office (hereinafter “military prosecutor”; [N.T.]) applied to the Niš Military Court and several other authorities to carry out certain investigative steps as follows. (a)    Questioning of the witnesses 27 .     Between 13 and 28 October 2004, the military investigating judge [I.D.] obtained the autopsy report and questioned a number of potential witnesses in order to reconstruct D.K.’s movements and behaviour during his military service and the period preceding his death. 28.     D.K.’s fellow conscripts from the military base described him as a very calm and reserved person, responsible and a good conscript who had no problems with any other conscript or officer. The troop psychologist described him as a person of above-average IQ, emotionally stable with no record of any psychiatric disorder or any reported problems in his private life or with carrying out his military service. She also affirmed that he had successfully performed guard duty seven times before the incident, after she had assessed him as being capable of doing so. 29.     The forensic medical expert G.M.T. who performed the autopsy (see paragraphs 19-22 above) stated that she could have described the incident as a classic suicide. She clarified that the high number of linear and arc-shaped scars on the neck (see paragraph 21 above) were only superficial and did not indicate any internal damage. She suggested that the injuries could have been caused by fingernails, if someone had tried to turn D.K. over in order to administer first aid or to ensure that his tongue was clear of his airways to avoid suffocation. 30.     On 15 October, the military investigating judge also informed the applicant’s lawyer about the steps that had been taken and invited him to visit him in order to fix a date to interview D.K.’s family. Thereafter, on 28   October, D.K.’s parents testified that D.K. had been a successful man and a wonderful child who had had no particular problems while he had been growing up in a loving atmosphere. They denied that D.K. had suffered from any psychological problems or that there were any such problems in the family. D.K. had spent the weekend before the incident at home, had gone with his family to the well-known trumpet orchestra festival at Guča and had appeared happy the whole weekend. As regards military service, they explained that more recently he had been on the phone to them crying, but had not wanted to give them any details. Because of that, they had paid a visit to the barracks in July 2004. During the meeting at the barracks or later on during the day, as he had had the afternoon off, D.K. had denied that there was any particular problem. However, they had observed that he had expressed a wish to stay out as long as possible to avoid returning when a particular superior was on duty. D.K.’s mother also questioned the seriousness of the investigation given that the bullets had not been found nor had there been any ballistics examination, and she wondered why they had not been given access to D.K.’s military reports, his locker or his phone. (b)    Paraffin samples 31 .     On 14 October 2004, the military investigating judge asked the Belgrade military police (VP 2834) to trace the paraffin samples which had been transferred with the body (see paragraph 15 above) and report to him, referring to the various concerns voiced by the parents and the fact that he had received no information on any analysis in the meantime. 32.     Two weeks later, the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Niš ( Zavod za sudsku medicinu Niš ) established the presence of gunpowder particles in the paraffin swabs taken from D.K.’s hands. Traces of nitrates ( nitriti ) were also found on the cloth which had been pulled through the barrel of the rifle. (c)    Forensic psychological and psychiatric post-mortem review and social analysis report 33 .     On the order of the military prosecutor, on 19 October 2004 the M.M.A.’s Mental Health and Military Psychology Institute conducted a forensic psychological and psychiatric post-mortem review of “the conscript’s suicide” to determine, inter alia , whether D.K. had suffered from any psychiatric disorders in the past and what his psychological condition had been during the period preceding the incident. 34.     According to the report, during the first months of his conscription D.K. had apparently had no problems adapting, had performed his military tasks in a correct and responsible manner, but had been somewhat aloof and uninvolved. No signs of unhappiness, unfitness or maladjustment had been observed, nor any kind of pre-suicidal symptoms which should have alerted the domestic authorities to the possibility that he might take his own life. Having regard to his behaviour, his family situation and his parents’ reports about his medical history, the experts were of the opinion that he had had a biological or social predisposition to anxiety and depression and a passive-dependent personality, which could have led him to take his own life after several frustrating incidents. More “as a reason for his state of mind than as the direct cause of his suicide”, they recorded that “he had come back from spending the weekend with his family, somebody had stolen his money, he was on shift from 5-7 a.m., the dormitory was empty and there were other circumstances which together could give rise to dissociated thinking and inadequate emotional reactions from a person who was predisposed to anxiety and depression”. Such a person copes successfully only in well controlled and less demanding circumstances. If such a person is exposed to highly demanding tasks or serious frustrations and conflicts, such as the theft of money, frequent and protracted patrol guard duties, or reprimands from a superior officer or from her or his mother, she or he may react impulsively and oversensitively, turning aggression inwards into herself or himself. 35 .     No responsibility on the part of the army was identified in the report. However, it also made a number of recommendations of preventive measures aimed at the effective prevention of suicide by conscripts and at protecting them from the dangers inherent in military life: (a) having more rigid requirements in assessing individual conscripts as fit for army service; (b) more seriously examining requests to postpone the commencement of compulsory military service: in the present case, both the conscript and his family had asked to defer it, without providing any reason, which indicated that he might have had some problems in his family or was not psychologically fit to join the army; (c) paying closer attention to conscripts who had previously been declared unsuitable for admission to the military high school, such as D.K.; (d) paying attention to “the phenomenon of fatigue” which is observed with conscripts who have multiple tasks or are exposed to frequent shifts on duty. This is a particularly difficult problem where there are insufficient numbers of conscripts in the unit for those duties. Therefore attention should be directed towards the physical strain on the individual and a more adequate shift schedule should be found than the current one, which can lead to disruption to sleep patterns and exhaustion, in turn producing anxiety, irritability, tensions and inadequate reactions with unpredictable consequences. 36.     The military investigating judge returned the case file to the Niš Military Prosecutor Office on 29 October 2004. 37 .     Following a request from the prosecutor, the Požega Social Care Centre also drafted a social analysis report about D.K. and sent it to the military prosecutor on 23 November 2004. (d)    Additional investigating steps sought by the military prosecutor 38.     On 3 November 2004 the applicant’s lawyer V. asked the military prosecutor to take statements from the conscripts and superior officers about the events that had preceded the disputed incident. His further request to the military investigating judge [I.D.] to recuse himself because of the appearance of bias was declined on 11 November 2004. The applicant submitted that the judge had organised press conferences in which he had insisted that D.K. had taken his own life and he had explicitly refused to take any evidence which did not collaborate that version, while also persistently pursuing inquiries about psychological problems within the family instead of inquiring about the facts of the present case. An appeal to the Supreme Military Court was rejected on 29 November 2004 as inadmissible because such a request could be lodged only by the parties [namely the prosecutor and the defendant] or the defendant’s representative. 39.     On 9 November 2004 the military prosecutor [N.T.] requested a set of new steps in the investigation, in particular: (i) that if any bullets were to be found in the ceiling, they should be taken for ballistic examination in order to determine whether they belonged to the cartridges found next to the body and whether they had been fired from the rifle found behind D.K.’s body (see paragraph 13 above) so as to determine the position ( međusobnog položaja ) of the body and the rifle at the moment of fire from looking at the trajectory of the bullet. Also, a ballistics expert should be asked for an opinion as to how the weapon was fired – whether consciously and willingly ( svesno i voljno ) or negligently or accidentally ( nehatno-zadesno ); (ii) that the forensic medical experts should be asked for further clarification of how and when the [non-ballistic] injury which had been present on the body (as described in paragraph 21 above) occurred ( o   mehanizmu nastanka i starosti ); (iii) that certain superior officers from the same barracks as D.K. ( komandira odeljenja i komandira voda ) should be interviewed about D.K.’s behaviour and how had he been treated by the other conscripts and officers (see paragraph 47 below). 40.     On 10 November 2004 the military investigating judge refused to carry out the additional investigating steps sought by the prosecutor ( izrazio neslaganje sa dopunom zahteva za preduzimanje sprovođenje pojedinih istražnih radnji ). He found it unnecessary to request a ballistics examination, as the response could be given by a psychological, not a ballistics, expert. He also considered it unnecessary to trouble the forensic medical experts about the insignificant injuries and the other witnesses, as the facts surrounding the death of D.K. had been sufficiently established by the autopsy reports (see   paragraphs 19-20 above) and by the statements previously taken from the witnesses. He referred the case to a three-judge criminal panel of the same court, in accordance with Article   243 §   7 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 41.     On 16 November 2004 the three-judge panel accepted in part the prosecutor’s application for a ballistics examination. In particular, the panel ordered: (i) a search for the bullets in the attic above the dormitory, to determine whether they had been fired from the rifle M-70B1 (numbered 151913), which had been found next to D.K.’s body (see paragraph 13 (points 3 and 4) above); (ii) a ballistics examination of the spent cartridges to determine whether they had been fired from the same rifle (see paragraph 13 (points 5-7) above) ( da li su izašle iz ležišta metka označene puške ); and (iii) a determination of the position of the body when the shot was fired and of the position of the rifle as discernible from the trajectory of the bullet and the traces on the ceiling (see paragraph 13 (points 9 and 10) above). The panel declined at that moment to order the remaining steps in the investigation proposed by the military prosecutor. (i)       An attempt of ballistic examination and reconstruction of the incident 42 .     A reconstruction of the incident took place on 23 November 2004 in presence of the military investigating judge [I.D.], the military prosecutor [N.T.], D.K.’s parents and their two lawyers, and the ballistics expert A.R. from the National Criminal Technical Centre of the Interior Ministry. It was established, as stated at the subsequent report, that: (i) the ceiling was made of concrete above a reed ceiling and that the bullets could not have passed through it; (ii) the bullets were also not found in the lower part of the ceiling which was constructed from reeds; (iii) the ballistics expert had tried to hold a reconstruction of the incident, simulating the possible positions of D.K.’s body. 43 .     The military investigating judge terminated the reconstruction following a comment by the ballistics expert that the projectiles could have broken up and that, even if they had been found, they would not have been suitable for a ballistics examination. 44 .     On 25 November 2004 the ballistics expert performed a ballistics examination and provided a brief report. He reported that the spent cartridge cases that had been preserved were identical to examples of bullets fired from the rifle M-70B1 (numbered 151913), so it could be concluded that they had also been fired from that rifle. Further, in view of the “preserved traces” (see   paragraph 13 above) and the data collected during the reconstruction, D.K. could have been “at the location” and “in one of the bent crouching positions”, while the trajectory of the projectiles could have been as shown on the photographs taken during the reconstruction of the incident. No   photographs have been filed with the Court. 45 .     Five days later, on 30 November 2004, the investigating judge asked the military police (VP 2834) to transfer the rifle M-70B1 from the Criminal Technical Centre in Belgrade (see paragraph 42 above) to Leskovac VP 4796. Later it transpired that the rifle had been misplaced and then disposed of to a private company in 2009 (see paragraphs 81-83 below) . (ii)     Supplementary report by the forensic medical expert and additional questioning of witnesses 46.     The military prosecutor [S.R.] also requested D.K.’s health and military records, the guard duty schedule and diary, and clarification of whether the bullets found at the scene of the incident (see paragraph 13 above) had belonged to the Jablanica barracks’ ammunition. The military police replied immediately in the affirmative to the question about the bullets, and explained that the requested files that the prosecutor had asked for had been sent to Belgrade together with D.K.’s body. 47 .     On 1 December 2004, Senior Corporal P.Z. (see paragraph 9 above) took additional witness statements from military officers N.K. and D.R. from the same barracks as D.K. They both stated that D.K. had been particularly calm and reserved, but that they had never heard that he had had any problems with anyone or that he had been bullied. 48 .     On 6 December 2004 the military prosecutor asked the forensic medical experts to clarify: (i) how old the [non-ballistic] injuries which had been present on the body (as described in paragraph 21 above) were; (ii) whether those injuries had occurred while D.K. was alive or after his death ( zaživotno ili nakon smrti ) and, if before his death, then how long before; and (iii) how serious the injuries were, and whether and to what extent they could have caused the death of D.K. 49 .     On 13 December 2004 Colonel Dr I.M., who supervised the first autopsy (see paragraph 19-22 above) provided a supplementary report on the head injuries, those injuries being to the right frontal eminence and the rear third of the left occiput: (i) emphasising that the report spoke of injuries not wounds ( ozlede, ne rane ); (ii) saying that the size and appearance of the injuries suggested that they had been caused by light blows from a blunt mechanical object to the skin of the areas of the head indicated; (iii) saying a “blunt object” did not mean a special object, and that the injury could have been caused actively, by a blow, or passively, by a fall ( aktivnim dejstvom – udarcem, ili pasivnim dejstvom – padom ). The injuries to the frontal eminence ( isturenost dela glave ) could have been caused by D.K. hitting his head on the door, parts of the furniture or the floor. Dr I.M. concluded that the injuries were light physical injuries sustained while D.K. was alive, and that they could not have had a fatal outcome. He lastly emphasised that this was the first time that he had had to comment on something that was not of any particular importance in causing a death. 3. Closing of military investigation and transfer of competence of military judiciary to the civil courts 50 .     In the meantime, on 30 November 2004, the family’s lawyer, N., was informed by certain Mayor R.M. that there would be a transfer of jurisdiction from the federal martial courts to the civilian judiciary and that they could be taking over the prosecution before the ordinary courts after 31   December   2004 (see paragraph 109 below). 51 .     The applicant was apparently not informed about the further steps in the investigation, apart from the forensic medical expert’s statements. Subsidiary prosecution by the applicant The applicant’s subsidiary prosecution for causing his son’s death (Ktn no. 9/05 and Kri no. 17/05) 52 .     On an unspecified date soon after, the applicant and the applicant’s wife filed a criminal complaint against unknown perpetrators, on the grounds that there was a reasonable suspicion that certain unidentified individuals had unlawfully killed their son D.K. 53.     On 4 April 2005 the District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Leskovac (“DPPOL”) summarily dismissed the criminal complaint on the grounds that it did not disclose the elements of a crime that that office would prosecute on their own motion. By a letter of the same day, the applicant was notified of that decision and of his right to pursue a subsidiary criminal prosecution within eight days of the date of service of the decision. 54 .     On 14 April 2005 the applicant submitted a request to the District Court in Leskovac, seeking the initiation of specific preliminary investigative measures ( zahtev za sprovođenje pojedinih istražnih radnji ). He asked the court to order the exhumation of the body and a further autopsy to correct the deficiencies of the first autopsy report (see paragraphs 19-22 above), and, in particular, to determine whether the bullet entry and exit wounds corresponded to the damage to the clothes, to the trajectory of the projectiles and the description at the first autopsy report, as well as to enlighten the injuries on D.K.’s neck and head. He further insisted that the forensic experts should be further questioned, that a more adequate ballistics examination should be performed, and that the names should be provided of the high-ranking military officers referred to in an article in the daily Danas of 11   April 2005 and of other witnesses who might disclose relevant facts surrounding the death of D.K. He asked a further investigation to be carried out with a view to clarifying the issues and determining with certainty whether his son had been killed or had taken his own life as alleged. 55.     On 27 May and 5 July 2005, the applicant complied with the direction of the investigating judge to give further details of his application in several respects, including explaining why the exhumation of D.K.’s body and a ballistics examination were necessary, and to provide a copy of the above-mentioned daily’s article. In the meantime the judge obtained the case files from the previous investigation. (a)    Second autopsy report of 2005 56 .     On 29 September 2005, the body was exhumed and a second autopsy was performed by a panel consisting of forensic doctors T.A. and D.J. of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Belgrade Faculty of Medicine, whose role was to give an independent opinion on what could have caused D.K.’s injuries. In the forensic report, drawn up on 11 November 2005, the experts concluded that although the body had been in an advanced state of decomposition and putrefaction, it appeared that the death had been violent and had been caused by damage to the thoracic organs ( grudnih organa ) resulting from projectiles shot from a firearm. 57 .     The forensic experts confirmed the earlier findings about the bullet entry and exit wounds and that the bullets had been fired from in front of D.K., from above him downwards and from the right to the left side (see paragraph 20 above). The two bullets had been shot one after the other and the injuries appeared to have been sustained with such a short interval that it made it impossible to determine their order. 58 .     Having regard to the case file, the collected traces of evidence and the documentation from the reconstruction of the incident (see paragraphs 42-44 above), the only position of the body consistent with the trajectory of the projectiles was an upright position, with D.K. leaning somewhat forwards or downwards with straight or slightly bent legs. Given the characteristics of the wounds and the tissue around them, it could be concluded that the bullets had been fired from a close range of a few centimetres, although a more precise distance could have been determined by a ballistics examination and test-firing similar shots. On the other hand, the description of the damage to the clothes indicated that the rifle had been directly in contact with the clothes. The experts concluded that there was no forensic evidence that ruled out the possibility that the victim might have sustained his injuries by self-harming. (b)    Refusal to further investigate 59 .     On 14 and 27 February 2006, the investigating judge and a three-judge criminal panel of the same court respectively refused to direct the other action sought by the applicant ( izrazio neslaganje sa zahtevom ), holding that the circumstances of D.K.’s death had been sufficiently disclosed, referring mostly to the above-mentioned findings about the causes of the fatal injuries, the position of the body and the fact that the fire selector on the rifle had been found in the “burst-fire” position (see paragraph 13(4) above). 60 .     Following an enquiry from the applicant about the case and a submission by him to the Ministry of Justice, on 15   May 2006 the Ministry informed him that all submissions had been transferred to the State Public Prosecutors’ Office with a request that it take all necessary steps to carry out its duties in a prompt and appropriate manner. It also sent to the applicant a report that had been drawn up by the President of the Leskovac District Court on 12   April 2006. The applicant allegedly learned of the decisions of 14   February and 27   February 2006 from that report, as allegedly neither he nor his representatives had been served with them previously. The Government and the Constitutional Court’s decision stated, however, that the later decision had been served on the applicant on 10   March, and on his wife and one of their legal representatives, V.B., on 13   March 2006. 61.     It would appear that the applicant then filed another application with the District Court in Leskovac, seeking the institution of a formal judicial investigation, but never received a response. Subsidiary prosecution of forensic experts G.M.T. and I.M. for malfeasance (no. 1457/05) 62 .     On an unspecified date, the applicant, together with his wife, lodged a criminal complaint against the forensic experts G.M.T. and I.M., who had drawn up the first official autopsy report in 2004 (see paragraphs 18-22 above), with the Military Division of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade (“DPPOB”). The grounds for the complaint were that there was a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the crime of “malfeasance in the discharge of their official duties” (“ nesavestan rad u službi ”). The complainants pointed out certain contradictions and shortcomings in the forensic report, including the unclarified injuries reportedly inflicted by a blunt mechanical object and the finding that the bullets had been shot from point blank range (see paragraphs 21-22 above) without any reliable forensic evidence for that finding. They proposed that numerous investigative steps should be taken. 63.     The applicant was informed by a letter of 9 June 2005 that the DPPOB had rejected the criminal complaint on 1 June 2005 on the grounds that there was no evidence that the experts had committed any crime that that office would prosecute. He was further notified that he could pursue a subsidiary criminal prosecution within eight days of receipt of that letter by filing an application for a judicial investigation ( zahtev za sprovođenje istrage ). 64.     On 23 June 2005 the applicant filed an application for an investigation, which he amended on 20 July 2005. The application stated, inter alia , that the applicant had provided expert opinions which identified numerous deficiencies in the first autopsy report, as well as contradictions between certain findings of fact and the conclusion that D.K. had been shot at point blank range. 65 .     On 18 April 2006 the investigating judge interviewed the suspects. Dr   G.M.T. claimed privilege against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent. Dr I.M. stated that he had been only supervising the autopsy his colleague had been doing and helping her with the photographic documentation. The conclusion that the shots had been made in “direct contact” with the body meant that the firearm had been in contact with the clothed body. They had not carried out a sophisticated examination ( sondiranje) of the wounds because they had observed two well-defined wounds. They said, however, that the standard method that they had used had confirmed their findings. Lastly, he explained that the injuries on the neck had not been deep, and that Dr G.M.T. had only described them and had not given her view on what might have caused them because it was understood that it should be left to the investigating judge to draw his own conclusions. 66.     It would appear that none of the applicant, his family members or their representatives was present during that questioning. 67.     The investigating judge refused to open the investigation sought by the applicant ( izrazio neslaganje sa zahtevom ) on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that the suspects had committed the alleged crime. He added that the 2005 forensic report had endorsed the findings and conclusions of the suspects in the 2004 autopsy report (see paragraphs 19-22 and 56-58 above). 68.     On 8 June 2006 a three-judge panel of the Military Division of the Belgrade District Court upheld the investigating judge’s findings, relying on the consistent findings of the two autopsy reports of 2004 and 2005 about the entry and exit bullet wounds and accepting the description of D.K.’s position in which he could have shot himself as credible (see paragraph 57-58 above). As a conclusion, the panel found it to be irrelevant that the first autopsy report had not clarified whether the “direct contact” had been with the body or the clothing, in view of the second opinion and Dr I.M.’s clarification of the issue at the hearing of 18 April 2006 (see paragraph 65 above). The panel mentioned the finding of the first autopsy report about the injuries which had been inflicted by a mechanical object, but did not elaborate on it. 69.     Neither the applicant nor his legal representatives were called to appear before the panel. Its decision was served on the applicant and was not served on his representatives. The applicant was informed that he could appeal against that decision within three days from the date on which the decision was served on him and he did so, reiterating his previous arguments and seeking the annulment of the above court’s decisions. 70 .     On 16 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Serbia rejected the applicant’s further appeal, upholding the lower court’s reasoning as clear, conclusive and convincing. That decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 22 April   2007. Civil proceedings against the State 71 .     Following a civil action brought jointly by the applicant and his wife and daughter in 2007 against the Defence Ministry, by 28 October 2010 the civil courts of Leskovac had established at two levels that D.K. had died while on compulsory military service, in a situation they found to be inherently dangerous. On the facts, the courts took into account that (i) D.K. had been on guard duty when he was found dead around 7   a.m. on 27   August 2004; (ii) the scene of incident report stated that it had been drawn up concerning “D.K.’s suicide”; and (iii) the autopsy report had concluded that D.K.’s death was violent and caused by projectiles shot from a firearm. The courts concluded that the Defence Ministry should therefore compensate the plaintiffs on the basis of strict liability ( objektivna odgovornost ) and awarded (i) D.K.’s parents RSD 800,000 each (approximately EUR 8,500 each) and RSD 600,000 (EUR 6,400) to D.K.’s sister, on account of the pain and anguish suffered; (ii) RSD 600,000 to the applicant in respect of pecuniary damage for the funeral-related and exhumation costs; and (iii) RSD 338,000 jointly for costs (to be paid from State funds). 72 .     On 25 January 2011 the First Belgrade Court of First Instance ordered the enforcement of the judgment. 73 .     According to the Government’s submission of 27 January 2025, the compensation awarded to Ms Anđa Kostic and Ms Maja Kostic was